Changing the Way Colorado
Votes
Peggy Cuciti & Allan Wallis
Buechner Institute for
Governance
University of Colorado Denver
How do we administer
elections now?
Multi-modal.
In person at precinct polling places
or vote centers;
In person at early vote centers;
By mail, including PMIV.
Decentralized.
Election Reforms Considered
1. Attitudes toward adopting to All-Mail Elections (VBM)
2. Projected costs/savings of adopting VBM elections
Also considered:
3. Moving the Registration Deadline Closer to Election Day
Research Approach
• Solicit informed opinions regarding impacts through
survey of key stakeholders: county clerks; election
activists; party chairs.
• We achieved a good response rate from clerks (58/64)
and from election activists (32/35), but a poor response
rate from party chairs (41/128).
• In depth accounting for 2010 general election costs and
detailed projects of cost changes resulting from VBM.
Survey Responses
• Green indicates support or
an impact generally viewed as
desirable and red and orange
indicates opposition or
undesirable impact.
Question:
What are the perceived
impacts from changing
to VBM Elections?
VBM: Impacts on Electoral
Participation: Turnout
• All groups think VBM will positively affect overall
turnout.
• Most clerks think it positively affects both
inactive and active voters.
• A majority of party chairs think it will increase
turnout among inactive, but not active voters.
• Election activists assess impacts differently; they
think it will increase turnout among active voters,
but not traditionally inactive voters.
What Empirical Studies Say
• VBM appears to result in a small increase in voter
turnout, but voters employing this mode are essentially
identical to the existing electorate. VBM does not seem
to promote greater diversity (e.g., increased
participation by blacks and Hispanics) in the
electorate.
What the Colorado Primaries Tell Us
• Counties that conducted VBM primaries experienced
about 10% high turnout than other counties, but the
former also have about 9% more voters registered to
received permanent mail ballots.
VBM: Having Your Vote Counted
• A majority of all groups believe the number of
ballots with errors that prevent tabulation will
not change, or will decrease. Clerks are least
likely to anticipate an increase (28%) compared to
about 40% of others.
• A large majority of party chairs and activists
believe there will be an increase in the number of
ballots arriving too late to be counted. 47% of
clerks also expect an increase in uncountable late
ballots.
VBM: Impact on
the Cost of
Conducting
Elections
All groups anticipate that
if elections were
conducted by mail, the
cost of administration
would decrease.
• Among groups, clerks are
much more likely to say
costs would significantly
decrease (66%).
VBM: Effect on
Election Integrity
Potential for Fraud
• 2/3 of clerks see no impact; and
almost 30% expect fraud would
decrease.
• For other groups (especially party
chairs) many more anticipate VBM
would increase fraud.
Likelihood of Voter Coercion
• 79% of clerks see no impact.
• For other groups, more than 60%
expect VBM would increase the
incidence of voter coercion.
Ability to Verify Voters’ Identity
•Only about 5% of clerks think ability
to verify identity will decrease.
•But approximately 40% of the other
groups think verification will be
harder.
VBM: Effect on
Election Integrity
Likelihood of Errors in Election
Administration
•Almost 2/3 of clerks expect that
VBM will results in reduced errors.
•Other groups are more likely to see
an increase in errors with VBM.
Reliability of Vote Tabulation
•73% of clerks see no impact and
remainder think reliability would
increase.
•For other groups, distribution is
more bi-modal. Among activists,
twice as many expect a decrease as
increase. Among party chairs, more
even distribution-17% expect
reliability to go ↓ and 22% to ↑.
VBM: Impact on
Democratic Values
Voters’ Confidence in the Election
Process
•A majority of clerks and election
activists expect no impact and among
clerks only 10% see any decrease.
•Party chairs express greater concern,
with 48% expecting a decrease in voter
confidence.
Sense of Community
•Clerks are split but more see an
increase than decrease.
•Others (especially activists) are
concerned that VBM will reduce sense
of community.
Levels of Citizen Oversight
•2/3 of clerks expect no change.
•Among others, a majority anticipate
decreased opportunity for citizen
oversight.
VBM: Other Impacts Generally Agreed
Upon and Viewed as Positive by all Groups
• Increases voters’ ability to complete complex
ballots;
• Increases access for disabled voters;
• Increases the timeliness of reporting election
results.
What Empirical Studies Say
• VOTER CONFIDENCE. Voters in general express a lower
level of confidence that their votes will be counted as
intended when they vote by mail than when they vote
in a polling place. However, confidence increases when
those receiving a ballot by mail return it themselves to
a polling place or other designated drop off location.
• FRAUD. Critics of VBM cite increased opportunities
for fraud as a major concern, but most evidence of
fraud that they provide is anecdotal.
What Empirical Studies Say
• VOTER PREFERENCE. A survey of Colorado voters
conducted by Mann and Sokhey in the summer of
2010 found that only 15% of voters support only
having a choice of mail balloting, while 77% wanted
to retain a choice among modes of voting (e.g., early
voting, polling places, service centers, etc.).
• A more recent statewide poll found somewhat
stronger, but still minority support for adopting allVBM elections. However, support increases if
respondents are asked their preference knowing that
all-VBM could save taxpayers dollars.
Question1:
Should Colorado Shift to
All-Mail Elections in
Even Years?
Support for
All-Mail Ballot
Very Strong Among
Clerks.
•92% of clerks support, mostly
“strongly”
Among other groups,
not so much.
•44% of party chairs
support, 56% oppose.
•40% of election activists
support, 60% oppose
•15% of voters support “only
mail ballots.” 77% want to
retain choice of voting
method (Mann & Sokhey,
Colorado Voter Opinion
Poll).
In all-mail
elections, should
service centers be
required?
Strong support
among all groups
• 85% of clerks
•76% of party chairs
•97% of election activists.
Most of those who support
service centers in all-mail
general elections also believe
the requirement should
extend to other all-mail
elections.
If all-mail
elections, should
ballots be sent to
inactive voters?
Respondent Groups
Disagree:
•61% of clerks say NO
But
•51% of party chairs and
97% of election activists
say YES
Most who say “yes” would
extend the requirement to
odd-year all-mail elections.
Question:
What are the
Costs/Savings Resulting
from Changing to VBM
Elections?
There are few studies on election
costs, but here are some key findings
• Costs have risen rapidly over the last decade.
• Equipment and labor are major cost drives.
• Although HAVA grants helped offset
equipment acquisition costs, these savings are
outweighed by higher maintenance costs over
the lifetime of the equipment.
• Paper with optical scan offer some savings
relative to DREs
• Savings possible with all-mail; % savings vary.
2008 Colorado Election Costs
A study by Russ Ragsdale of the 2008 general
election costs--excluded regular personnel and
equipment—found:
• Average Cost per registered voter of $8.49 but
with big variation among counties ($2.92 to $39.01) .
• Most expensive components of the election
– Temporary staff and overtime 33.8%
– Printing ballots 30%
Technical support 12.5%
• Possible savings of 45% if all-mail election
Buechner Institute Cost Study
• Survey of 4 pairs of counties matched by size
of electorate and geographic region, but
differing on mode of voting for the 2010
primary.
• Four additional unpaired urban counties.
• The 12 sample counties contain over twothirds of the state’s population.
Major Cost Components Considered
• Personnel: regular staff* + overtime; temporary staff,
election judges, other.
• Printing: ballots; voter notifications; poll books;
training materials; other.
• Mailing: ballots; voter notifications; other.
• Facilities: voting and drop off sites; equipment
storage and transportation; etc.
• Miscellaneous: technical support; IT support; vehicle
rental & mileage; supplies, etc.
• Equipment: capital costs*
* These cost components were not included in the Ragsdale study
Two Study Approaches
• 8 Paired County Comparison of Primary Costs
• 12 County Comparison of Actual General
Election Costs with Estimated Costs if All Mail
Election.
Average Cost Per PrimaryEligible Registered Voter
• 4 All-Mail Counties
• 4 Traditional Counties
$6.95
$8.45
• SAVINGS
$1.50
. 2010 General Election Costs: Actual and Estimated if VBM
8.00
7.00
Cost per Registered Voter
6.00
Capital equipment
(depreciation)
all other miscel
5.00
4.00
facility related
3.00
Mailing
2.00
Printing
1.00
Election Judges and
Temporary Labor
Regular Staff (incl
overtime)
0.00
Actual
Est. if VBM
Simple Average, 12
Colorado counties
. 2010
General Election Costs: Actual and
Estimated if VBM
The average cost per registered voter in the 2010
general election was $6.70, including equipment
costs and permanent labor. If those two cost factors
are excluded, then the average cost is $4.03, less
than half the cost of the 2008 presidential election,
which had the largest turnout in the state’s history.
If the 2010 general election had been conducted
through all-mail balloting, it would likely have cost
$1.05 less per registered voter; a savings of almost
19%.
Cost Changes in VBM by Cost Categories
Total
Equipment
1.05
0.00
Other
0.17
Facility related
0.6
-0.10
Mailing
Printing-0.05
Other labor
Regular Staff (incl overtime)
-0.20
0.84
0.13
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Election Judges and Temporary Labor
Biggest contributor to
savings: $0.84
On average, 66%
reduction.
All counties report
savings.
Main reason: Don’t
need to staff polling
places on Election Day.
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
1.38
0.60
0.40
0.54
0.20
0.00
Actual
Est. if VBM
Other Changes Resulting from
VBM
• Printing costs increased marginally on
average, +5 cents per registered voter;
increasing in some, decreasing in others.
• Mailing costs increased by 10 cents per
registered voter.
Other Changes Resulting from
VBM
• Miscellaneous costs including equipment
maintenance, transport and storage reduced
by 39% (-17 cents per registered voter).
• Capital Equipment Costs assumed to remain
constant, but over time there should be
savings.
Population Size
Matters
Costs are much
higher per
registered voter
in small counties
than in the
medium or large
sized counties.
$12.00
$10.21
$10.00
$9.47
$8.00
Actual
$6.00
$4.00
Estimated, if all Mail
$4.96
$4.92
$3.61
$3.86
$2.00
$0.00
Large (4)
Medium (4)
Small (4)
All Counties Would Save
Regardless of Size
•Regardless of size, all counties
would save as a result of changing to
all-mail balloting.
•Savings would be greatest for big
counties-27%,
then medium counties-22%,
and least for small counties --7%.
Projected Total Statewide Savings
from VBM Elections
If the 2010 general election had been
conducted statewide through all-mailing
balloting, including the use of service
centers before and on Election Day and
the sample counties are assumed to be
representative of all similar sized
counties, the projected savings would
have totaled almost $4 million.
Question2:
Should Colorado Shift Its
Registration Deadline
Closer to Election Day?
Changing the Registration Deadline
• Individuals must first establish their eligibility
by registering to vote;
• Current Law in Colorado closes the
registration process 29 days prior to the
election.
• 9 states + D.C. allow SDR – registration up to
and including Election Day.
• There are many options for changing the
registration deadline.
Option 1: Maintain
the Current Law –
Registration Deadline
29 Days prior to
Election
•All of the clerks and most
of the party chairs find
current law with respect to
registration deadlines
acceptable.
•The great majority of
election activists would like
to see a change.
•Opinions hold fairly
constant even if
respondents assume a
shift to all mail elections.
Option 2: Change
the deadline to
one week prior to
election
Election activists are much
happier with this option, with
73% finding it acceptable;
However, a majority of clerks
and party chairs oppose this
change to the registration
deadline.
Coupling this reform with allmail election has a relatively
small impact on views.
Other Options
• Moving the deadline even closer to Election
Day increases activist support somewhat, with
the highest level of support (90%) for:
– Option 3, the Friday before, or
– Option 4, Election Day itself, if limited to the C&R
office.
• Support from clerks and party chairs are even
lower for these options than for one week
prior.
Why are there different views?
• Election activists consistently see positive
impacts arising and think potential negative
impacts are unlikely to occur.
• Clerks and party chairs think positive
outcomes are unlikely to be realized and that
there is a real risk of negative impacts
occurring.
Would changing the
registration deadline
increase voter turnout?
Election activists support changing
the deadline because they believe
it will increase turnout, especially
among those who move
frequently and/or who historically
have low rates of participation in
the electoral process.
Neither clerks nor party chairs
share this view. They think
changing the registration deadline
might help movers, but a large
majority of both groups do not
expect an increase in overall
turnout, or turnout by historically
underrepresented groups.
Would changing the
deadline affect election
administration?
Increase the Workload of election
administrators
A majority of clerks and party chairs
say the change would increase
workload; election activists disagree.
Result in Long Lines at Polling Places
Election activists don’t believe that
changing the voter registration
deadline to the Friday before election
would result in long lines at polling
places. A majority of clerks believe
long lines would result. Party chairs
are more split in their views but more
disagree that this would be an impact
than agree.
Would changing the
deadline affect election
administration?
Make it More Difficult to Plan for the
election.
Almost all the clerks believe changing
the registration deadline would make it
difficult to estimate the # of ballots or
staff needed to conduct the election.
Party chairs share this concern. Election
activists disagree that this would be an
impact of the change.
Make it Difficult to Compile and publish
poll books.
The reactions to this statement were
similar to the one above.
Make it Difficult to Create Voter Lists for
Special District Elections
The reactions to this statement were
similar.
Would changing the
deadline affect
election
administration?
Provisional Ballots
Reducing the number of provisional
ballots is a potential benefit. Most clerks
and election activists anticipate changing
the deadline would be beneficial. Party
chairs are divided but more disagree with
the prediction than agree.
Emergency Registrations
Almost all the activists believe there
would be a drop in emergency
registrations. Most of the clerks also
believe this. Party chairs are divided in
their view, although more agree than
disagree.
Would changing the
deadline affect
election integrity?
Fraudulent Registrations
Almost 2/3 of clerks and of party
chairs believe that changing the
registration deadline would result
in an increase in fraudulent
registrations.
Election activists do not believe
that changing the law would have
this impact.
What Empirical Studies Say
• TURNOUT. Adoption of SDR appears to
increase voter turnout, especially among
younger and more mobile voters.
• INCONVENIENCE TO VOTERS. Research
suggests that delays caused by SDR are
reduced over time as voting technology (e.g.,
scanners) is modernized.
• PARTISAN BALANCE. SDR does not appear to
favor one political party over another.
• ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. The introduction
of SDR can produce an administrative burden
on a state’s election officials, but this burden
seems to decline over time as the demands
generated by SDR become more familiar.
• FRAUD. There is no clear evidence that SDR
increases the incidence of voter fraud.